Re: [PATCH 2/3] Rework arch specific Makefiles to use mkubootimg

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:04:45 +0000
Russell King <rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:48:02AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Rework the architecture specific Makefiles to use the in-kernel version of
> > the mkubootimg tool.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> From the point of view of no overall change: Ack.

Ok, thanks.  As it really is no change from the current status quo,
I'll go with this until something happens from the discussion below.

> From the point of view of whether we should have this in the kernel:
> probably not.
> 
> See http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/thread/20071203.131631.85e7a1a5.en.html#20071203.131631.85e7a1a5
> 
> for a recent discussion on the ins and outs, multiple formats, options
> and so forth passed to mk(u)image.  It looks like we're heading for 5 or
> 6 different kernel image formats for the ARM architecture. ;(

Hm, that's a bit unfortunate indeed.  I'm not very familiar with ARM,
but is there a "majority" image format that is used?  If so, we could
have the kernel build system generate that by default for uImages.

If not, perhaps it would be better to remove the uImage stuff
completely for ARM as you hinted at in that thread.  The other
architectures don't seem to suffer from as many differences and are
probably OK.

josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/